Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is highly regrettable that the House must once again be in the position of having to express its outrage at yet another terrorist incident. Again, that incident is linked to a terrible distortion or perversion of Islam, a perversion that resulted in the killing of scores of Egyptians and their foreign guests, including an American, at Sharm el-Sheikh last weekend. Two weeks ago we were sharing in the loss of scores of British citizens after the treacherous attacks in London. Today through this resolution we share in the mourning of Egyptians. Our feeling of sympathy is common to both peoples who share with us, most of all, our humanity, and whom we mourn just as we mourn all others who are lost in terrorists attacks around the world. Despite our differences with certain policies pursued by the Government of Egypt, the killing of innocents must be strongly condemned, and we stand ready to support Egyptian authorities in bringing to justice those responsible for the recent attacks. We must unite with the Government and the people of Egypt to help fight a common enemy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 384) condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on July 23, 2005, and for other purposes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend one of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Tomorrow he will go before the Senate Committee on Financial Services, Housing, and Urban Affairs to have his nomination considered for the Securities and Exchange Commission, and I would like to extend congratulations to him and his family. I have every confidence that in his new capacity, Chris will do an excellent job. Chris has made such a positive and lasting impression during his tenure here in the House, and he will be sorely missed. Since 1988, Chris has made countless contributions, especially as the first chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. In this capacity, he oversaw a momentous and much-needed reorganization of the Nation's security authority. I feel privileged to have worked with such a distinguished Member of Congress, and I wish him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to take up the Central American Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA-DR, this week, I urge my colleagues to render their full support for this measure. This is an agreement that is not solely about trade, but also about saving lives and furthering the spread of democracy in the world. Passing CAFTA-DR has many positive and far-reaching implications. It promotes U.S. national security objectives in our own backyard by opening markets and fostering economic development, which are the critical weapons in fighting the conditions that breed instability and terrorism. By supporting CAFTA-DR, we will be giving the people of the countries included under the agreement the hope for change and for progress. CAFTA-DR is not only vitally important to the future of the Central American nations and to the Dominican Republic, but to our own economic well-being and overall strategic considerations. By expanding exports, by lowering the trade deficit, CAFTA-DR creates jobs. Today nearly 80 percent of the products from Central America and the Dominican Republic and 99 percent of the agricultural products already enter the United States duty free. America's markets are already open. But Americans who wish to sell to Central America and the DR, on the other hand, face high tariffs. CAFTA-DR eliminates those foreign taxes, opening the region's markets to goods, services and farm products from the United States. U.S. investors have invested billions of dollars overseas, stimulating trade. U.S. investors must be treated fairly in foreign markets like Central America if the system is to work fairly. The passage of CAFTA-DR in my home State of Florida would have far-reaching positive implications. Collectively the countries of CAFTA-DR are Florida's largest export destinations. Even individually CAFTA-DR markets are important trading partners for my home State of Florida. CAFTA-DR would provide enhanced market access to the Dominican Republic and to Central America as it will boost opportunities for Florida exporters throughout the region, providing new market access for the State's products. CAFTA-DR will further obligate our trading partners to bring their laws and their regulations up to U.S. standards in areas such as the regulation of services, investments, intellectual property, telecommunications, procurement, and e-commerce. Establishing a level playing field helps U.S. businesses to compete. Concurrently CAFTA-DR will help strengthen the rule of law and promote transparency against all sectors. In doing so, it would help deny criminal elements and other unsavory characters of the corrupt structures that they could manipulate for anything from money laundering to terrorist financing. As such, CAFTA-DR also serves to promote democratic governments, thus advancing stability and consolidating freely elected governments that are our allies in the war on drugs and the international war on terror. By strengthening our allies, our neighboring countries, we are helping to stabilize and strengthen our own Nation. In passing CAFTA- DR, we are helping to ensure that the countries it includes will have the opportunity to fight threats to their democratic institutions that feed off discontent, poverty, and disenfranchisement. On the other hand, failure to pass CAFTA-DR in Congress will only serve to cripple our efforts in freezing out narcoterrorist gangs and others who threaten our hemispheric stability. Finally, CAFTA-DR would also allow Central America to thrive by exporting goods through trade rather than exporting people through illegal immigration. Opportunities would also increase access to new technologies and educational opportunities that are going to afford small and medium businesses the ability to expand and diversify. It would open the door to more private investment, to a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the job market, and higher economic growth, government revenue and increased social spending. In summary, Mr. Speaker, adoption of CAFTA-DR will not only advance our own economic objectives, further our efforts to combat the war on terror and narcotrafficking, but also will strengthen our mission of strengthening and spreading democracy. I look forward to the passage of CAFTA-DR. A vote for CAFTA-DR is a vote for our U.S. national security.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, a shameful occupation that is now entering its 31st year. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for providing an opportunity for discussion on this important topic. Mr. Speaker, Turkish troops have been in Cyprus since the occupation in 1974, when over the course of a two-stage offensive, Turkish troops took control of 38 percent of the island. The number of occupying troops now stands at over 30,000 Turkish troops, making Cyprus one of the most militarized countries in the world. As a Cuban political refugee, the values of liberty and democracy are very dear to my heart. I personally empathize with the Greek Cypriot community and share their plight to achieve a fair end to the Turkish occupation. The emergence of a strong, vibrant and justifiably unified Cyprus would promote stability both politically and economically to the entire Mediterranean region and would provide a strategic ally for the United States at the crossroads of Europe, Africa, and Asia. As a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations and as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I shared the joy with families across Cyprus for their much-deserving union with the European Community, as the prominence of Cyprus will be augmented by its full integration into the European Union. Although all of us wanted to see a fair end to the division of Cyprus before its accession to the EU, the Annan Plan for a Cyprus settlement was rightfully voted down by the Greek Cypriots by a large majority of 76 percent. The plan imposed unacceptable conditions, including enabling Turkish troops to remain in Cyprus for an indefinite time, even after Turkey's eventual accession to the European Union. There can be no reunification plan that permits Turkish troops to remain stationed on Cypriot soil. Likewise, the plan unfairly allowed Turkish Cypriots and mainland Turkish settlers to keep Cypriot homes and other properties they seized following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and it would not have to reimburse the owners of the property. There can be no unification that provides for the expropriation of Cypriot property. In March of this year, I wrote to President Bush demonstrating that the ``no vote'' must not be interpreted at a vote against reunification, but rather as a legitimate expression of the real concerns that made that particular version of the Annan Plan unacceptable to Greek Cypriot voters. The United States, Cyprus, and Greece continue to maintain a close relationship, and have a great deal in common. Indeed, the democratic principles which unite our nations were first planted some 2,500 years ago in ancient Greece. The very word ``democracy'' is a construct of two Greek words, ``demos'' and ``kratos'' meaning ``rule by the people,'' and its principles were discussed by the Founding Fathers and are evident in our own Constitution. James Madison, a crafter of this great Nation, wrote the following: ``Among the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian republics.'' Who are we to argue with James Madison? Today, Cyprus, Greece and the United States share a deep and abiding commitment to democracy, human rights, free markets and the ideal and practice of equal justice under the law. As one of our strongest allies in the war against terror, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus continue to fight against the latest global threats of terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, nuclear proliferation, illegal narcotics and international crime. Cyprus has taken many concrete and active steps to target the perpetrators, collaborators and financiers of terrorism. As a NATO ally, the Greek government has given the United States both military and financial support for Operation Enduring Freedom, including unrestricted use of its air space and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Most recently, Greece and the United States successfully collaborated during the Summer Olympic Games to guarantee the safety and success of these events. In testament to their commitment to human welfare, Greece's security budget was $1.2 billion, an amount exceeding all prior Olympic games. In recognition of our commonalities, I urge Congress to remain engaged in the search for a just and lasting reunification of Cyprus that will promote peace and stability in this important region.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher amendment arguing that our facility in Guantanamo is essential to the defense of the U.S. and our coalition partners. Mr. Chairman, the Guantanamo Bay facility currently houses some of the elite of our enemy's crop in the war against terror, including enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to bombmakers to would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers. Guantanamo provides a strategic interrogation center where these enemy combatants can be questioned and where the results of the interrogations have produced information that has saved the lives of U.S. and coalition forces in the field, as well as has thwarted threats posed to innocent civilians in this country and indeed throughout the world. Through the detainees held at this facility, we have learned about the detonation systems used in roadside bombs in Iraq, bombs that have been used by the insurgency to kill our troops and innocent Iraqi citizens. Detainees include some of Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguards and one of the suspected 20 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. Closing Guantanamo Bay, as some of our colleagues have suggested, will not relieve the United States of needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the government would have to relocate those functions. Furthermore, given the history of al Qaeda and the jihadists, the closure of Guantanamo would provide an enormous boost in morale to the terrorists and their supporters. Finally, detainees held at Guantanamo pose a significant threat to Americans, to U.S. allies and civilians in their home countries. There are reports of detainees released from Guantanamo, returned to their home countries, only to resume terrorist activities and attacks against the U.S., our allies, and innocent civilians. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Rohrabacher amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of our subcommittee chairmen of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly. I discussed it with former staffers and current interns who have served recently in both civilian and military capacities in Iraq. I discussed the situation with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart. But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, who is being deployed to Iraq in just 1 week, that had the most profound effect. He helped me to fully comprehend the importance of our mission in Iraq and the impact of what we say here and do here with the impact it has at home and on our Armed Forces serving abroad. Mr. Chairman, our mission is just. It has far-reaching strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region. For these reasons, and most importantly for my stepson, Dougie Lehtinen, his financee, Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq also in a week, and to all of the members in our proud U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it. Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism worldwide. Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and the ideological challenges of Islamic extremism. Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and it increases the deterrent value of U.S. power. Finally, through the promotion of incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted efforts to counter root causes of Islamist extremist and terrorism in the region. The terrorists are fighting for their survival because freedom threatens them. Democratic governments deny terrorists the weapons, the funds and sanctuary they need in order to survive. Democracy denies them new recruits. Terrorism mastermind al-Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans. In a February 17, 2004 letter to an al Qaeda operative, al-Zarqawi said, ``Our enemy is growing stronger day by day. By God, this is suffocation. We will be on the roads again.'' One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in December 2003 that ``democracy is a far more dangerous threat,'' adding that it makes Muslims refuse to take part in jihad. The continuing presence of U.S. and coalition forces must be determined by the achievements of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar. Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for an early withdrawal are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and to the hopes of the Iraqi people.'' However, as we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber, words matter. What we say here to condemn human rights violations, incitement and anti-semitism or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world has a tremendous positive impact. In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq has a negative effect. They diminish the morale of the troops and serve to embolden the enemy. Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding, that their commitment to violence, to hatred, and to terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom and fighting tyranny? The amendment before us seeks to restate our commitment to the successful completion of our mission in Iraq. It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of transfer of responsibility for security to Iraqi forces, but cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved. Is this asking too much? Let us not waver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq. The Iraqi people have not wavered. Our men and women in uniform are not wavering. In fact, this weekend we saw newspaper stories reporting that soldiers are reenlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets. Army officials say this is due in part to a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Let us demonstrate to our forces that just as our Nation stood behind the greatest generation during World War II as they fought against tyranny, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq, a new great generation of heroes whose actions will not only help to make the world safer, but will alter the political landscape towards the irreversible path of freedom and democracy. I ask my colleagues to support our troops. I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people. I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and for democracy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly. I arrived at this decision after listening to a former staffer of mine, who recently returned from Iraq, and one of my current interns who served with the United States Army in Iraq. I arrived at this decision after discussing the situation in Iraq with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart. But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S Marine Corps, that had the most profound effect on me and helped me fully comprehend the importance of the mission that our men and women in the armed forces are embarked on in Iraq. My stepson, Dougie, is on his way to perform his duty in Iraq. To him, it is not an obligation. It is an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to serve his Nation, to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people, to confront the terrorists, and, perhaps, most importantly, to fight tyranny as the ``Greatest Generation'' did during World War II. Our mission is just. It has far-reaching, long-term, strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region. For these reasons and, most importantly, for my stepson Doug Lehtinen, his fiancee Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq in a week, and all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it. Simply stated, we cannot afford to yield a victory to the terrorists in Iraq and throughout the region. Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism worldwide--a strategy that includes: killing and disrupting terrorists abroad, confronting theocratic and autocratic regimes that harbor terrorists and facilitate terrorist attacks, and promote economic reform and democracy as a means to address the grievances of people throughout the region that have been manipulated and turned against us by the dictatorial regimes that permeate the region. Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism, the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and ideological challenge of Islamist extremism. Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and increases the deterrent value of U.S. power. Finally, through the promotion of an incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted effort to counter root causes of Islamist extremism and terrorism in the region. The objective is for the U.S. to proactively engage and support reformers and assist in developing within the Middle East a bastion of stable, free-market democratic societies. We are engaged in a struggle between moderation and extremism. The terrorists are fighting for their survival. Freedom threatens the terrorists. Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans. In this February 17, 2004 letter to al-Qaeda operatives, al Zarqawi said: ``Our enemy is growing stronger day after day . . . By God, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again.'' He further said: ``we are racing time . . . If the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die . . .'' Democratic governments deny terrorists the funds, weapons, and sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy and freedom deny recruits. One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in September 2003 that ``a far more dangerous threat'' is ``secularist democracy.'' He cautions against democracy's ``seduction'' as it drives Muslims to ``refuse to take part in Jihad.'' This is a clear illustration of how our efforts in Iraq are serving our long-term goals of spreading democracy as an antidote to extremism and terrorism. Success does not come without challenges. Creating new and effective political and security institutions in Iraq takes time. The task before us is not insurmountable, but, if rushed, we do risk failure for lack of persistence. The continuing presence of U.S. and Coalition forces must be determined by the achievement of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar. The process of, and criteria governing, the withdrawal of U.S. and Coalition forces from Iraq must be performance-based, not chronologically-based. Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for early withdrawal of United States and coalition forces are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and the hopes of the Iraqi people.'' I respectfully disagree. As we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber and in the International Relations Committee--words matter. What we say in this Chamber through resolutions condemning human rights violations, for example, or condemning incitement and anti- Semitism, or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world, have a tremendous positive impact. These statements and measures serve to empower those who toil for freedom throughout the world. In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq have a negative effect. They serve to embolden the enemy and the terrorists. Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding? That we are weakening in our resolve? That the terrorists' commitment to violence, hatred, and terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom, and to combating the forces of evil and tyranny? Many of our coalition allies in Iraq understand the importance of completing our mission there--allies such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine who understand the lessons of history and want to take steps to prevent any people from having to experience the suffering that they endured under German occupation and Soviet communist rule. My colleagues, this amendment does not question anyone's patriotism. In fact, the amendment before you is a modified text which includes recommendations from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This amendment seeks to re-state our commitment to successful completion of our mission in Iraq. It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces, and cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved. Is this asking too much--considering our goals are to combat those seeking to export their extremist, terrorist ideologies; those who seek to deny the Iraqi people their freedom; those who threaten global peace and security? Let us not waiver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq. The Iraqi people have not wavered. Our men and women in uniform are not wavering. In fact, this weekend saw newspaper stories reporting that ``soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets.'' Army officials say that this is due, in part, to a ``renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism.'' Let us demonstrate to our forces that, just as our nation stood behind the ``Greatest Generation'' during World War II as they fought the evil pursuits of a tyrannical ruler, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq--a new great generation of heroes--whose actions in Iraq will not only help make the world safer in the long-term, but will alter the political landscape toward the irreversible path of freedom and democracy. I ask my colleagues to support our troops. I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people. I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and democracy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) in praising the strong bipartisan show of support for our Armed Forces in this debate, and I thank the chairman for his great leadership and guidance throughout the years. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader and a staunch defender of human rights and a supporter of our fighting men and women who wear the proud uniform of the United States and our coalition partners.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President of the United States nominated Judge John Roberts, Jr. to be the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. I applaud his choice, and I am hopeful that he is confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its term on October 3. Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, the impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment, and highest integrity necessary for a Supreme Court Justice. He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion. It is not surprising that the National Journal has said of John Roberts that he seems to be a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have; all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law. But Judge Roberts is not new to the confirmation process. In fact, he was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3, and then confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. Clearly, Judge Roberts will make an excellent jurist, and I urge the Senate to move quickly with the confirmation process.